Talk:Superstition

Article is terrible, rewrite needed

This article was already in a bad place but appears to have rapidly degraded in quality recently, with the insertion of numerous poor quality sources )see WP:RS) and a POV-slant that makes the article look like it was written in the early 20th century (WP:POV). This is a folklore studies topic—folk belief and "superstition" are genres of folklore—and looks like it's time for a complete and total rewrite using peer-reviewed material from academic folklorists. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for reference: Link to ongoing discussion @ Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Superstition We should update link on that discussions archival. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Some weeks later in some other context, @ policy village pump some users were discussing WP:VPP#Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down. I had the same feelings of Fringe discussion board being used for turning real context upside-down.

Any or some users can always discuss rewriting of the article taking Wikipedia policies into account is really not an issue. But here issue seemed bit different something else.

It is fallacious propaganda misleading public at large to think that topic of Superstition ought to be limited to domain of folklore; as if fields of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science have no concerns at all.(pl. read again)

What is mainstream is being defined conveniently benefiting to one field of study and ignoring others. Without discussing concerns one by one in detail, only alarmist monopolizing claims are placed on talk page, convenient notices flashed article page and forum shopping on Fringe notice board without informing article talk that one is raising a point there!

Above is to keep my reply here on record before the 2021 ends.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Human rights" While I understand your point that we should not limit ourselves to a single area of study for input, why do you think that superstition is a human rights issue? Dimadick (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation of the point I was trying to make. Any belief if not causing fear, hate or harm to well being of living species in general and humans in particular, superstitious or not would be lesser cause of concern.

Eg. If some one wants to believe by being silent or dancing in particular way they will get some lottery though would be irrational thought usually not cause a direct harm. Still study of micro economics of family, point of view, the persons are not doing any thing or just dancing does not generate requisite income would remain socio economic concern but that concern will not be affecting too negatively beyond perimeters of family.

But if some one believes by harming sacrificing a living animal sacrifices, un til pre twentieth century examples of human sacrifices not many but few used to occur, Witch hunt is less now but un til twentieth century it used to happen, animal sacrifices still happen. On less serious side torture of Exorcism still takes place even at the cost of breach of human right. Not only in Muslim world psychologists can not deny existence of Jinns while treating their patients. If a psychologist understands Jinns do not exist but not allowed to speak against superstition, that may amount to psychological torture of any righteous rational psychologists.

Here I do not want to limit criticism to any single religiosity. I have been also looking for help in article Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies expansion. Similar drafts I wish to have for others but six monthly limit on drafts I am going slow. I am also looking for article expansion help in Draft:Irrational beliefs.

Here is one 2020 study paper " The Impact of Myths, Superstition and Harmful Cultural Beliefs against Albinism in Tanzania: A Human Rights Perspective"

January 3, 2022 ARY Digital:

"..Cases of fake faith healers using their perceived position in society to abuse, blackmail and harass women are not uncommon in Pakistan.."..."..Last month, a fake pir had allegedly raped a woman in Tibba Sultanpur, a town in Punjab province, while claiming to free her of jinn. ... the fake exorcist visited the home and asked the family to go out of the room to free the woman of jinn. He later subjected the woman to sexual assault. The suspect was apprehended by the family members, who broke down the door of the room after hearing her screams from inside the premises.." Ref:" ‘Faith healer’ arrested for blackmailing woman in Lahore"

Not human well being and human right issues?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Attempting overhaul

Hello all. I posted a round of changes, first trying to better organize definitions. Hoping to keep going tonight and over the weekend, tighterning things up, adding 2-3 journal articles I've got tucked away, using more of Vyse's 2020 book. Trying to make sense of the discussions on this page. Hopefully the article will look better when I'm done (if it doesn't... you know what to do). Please check my work and discuss as needed. Pinging @Bookku, ARY Digital, Bloodofox, GOLDIEM J, and Nolicmahr:

I may need help finding more sources from folklore journal, not having much success. Robincantin (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Refs

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921005018?dgcid=rss_sd_all

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Request edit of "Alternative religious beliefs as superstition" prominence/significance/placement

It does not appear that most of the subcategories under the section heading "Alternative religious beliefs" should be included under that heading.

The "Classification" section should be the second and more prominent section of the article to conform to the hierarchical nature of the article. (And IMO a hierarchical structure that all Wikipedia articles should mirror.)

Since every definition on this page would classify all religions as superstitions the article should not give such prominence nor significance to the section: "Alternative religious beliefs as superstition".

Furthermore this heading supports religions in current/popular practice and instead should be titled "Religous Belief".

Finally any topic discussing religious belief should be a sub-section of "Regional and national superstitions"

JeffreyPopek (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)